About your Search

20130416
20130424
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6
areas. one, financial planning going forward at the departments and number two, missile defense and our ability to defend the homeland. i want to start that much discussion about sequestration that the current budget and the department will hope fully in the month of may comply with the scots that present short-term challenges of long-term challenges. in addition, they contemplate a renew commission process going forward. i would suggest of assessing sequestration in the short-term and long-term and cannot brac process that a component should conclude consideration to the degree with which we can reduce the prance overseas, reduce bases overseas command manpower overseas, consistent with essential imperative for national security. the first question i wanted to ask secretary hagel as to what extent is the department complying with these financial pressure is our ability to drive down overseas footprints. referable to reduce overseas and here at home if it can be done consistently national security and to what extent is it apart and engaged right now in that assessment and analysis? >> t
't allow. and i'm not blaming the lawyer. my goodness, if i were his defense lawyer, you wouldn't ask him one thing without my permission and you would have to give a lot to get an answer to anything. all i'm suggesting is that we're at war, these two people fit the profile of folks who are trying to kill us, they're tied to overseas organizations potentially. why in the world can't our country have some time with this person in the national security legal system to find out about what he knows and how they planned this attack to make the rest of us safer? i believe in due process. and he in that system can go to a judge and say, i'm not an enemy combat expent the government would have to -- combatant and the government would have to prove you are. so he has due process there. but here's what i believe deeply, and then i'll turn it over to senator eye i can't telw hampshire. i believe the closer to get to your homeland, the more rights we have as a people to defend ourselves. i don't want a police state. i don't want to live in ath a country where you can't express who you are and what yo
approved actions for cia and defense personnel based upon legal guidance that has since been repudiated. the most important decision may have been to declare the geneva convention did not apply to al qaeda and taliban captives in afghanistan or guantÁnamo. the administration never specified what rules would app apply. the task force believes that u.s. defense intelligence professionals and servicemembers in harm's way need absolutely clear orders on the treatment of detainees, requiring at a minimum compliance with common article iii of the geneva convention. this was not done. civilian leaders and military commanders have an affirmative responsibility to ensure that their subordinates comply with laws of war. president obama has committed to observe the geneva convention through an executive order, but a future president could change it by the stroke of a pin. congress, one of our recommendations, needs to work with the administration to strengthen torture statute, the war crimes act and uniform criminal to justice to remove the loopholes that allow torture to occur. in terms of the c
and the supreme court's rulings that have affirmed our individual right to self-defense and our individual right for freedom? and i believe i actually have an answer that the senate could coalesce around. you know, as i talk to the most avid gun owners in oklahoma, many who are opposing me trying to reach a compromise, the one question that they agree with me on is, if you could know as a gun owner, or whoever you are, if you have a gun and you're going to sell, if you could know that you were not selling that gun to somebody on the "do not buy" list -- you see, we've got all these words going on right now. the background check. there's no background check with the nics list. it's a check against a prohibited -- people who are prohibited from buying. and it's not a very good list, by the way, because the states haven't complied, the courts haven't complied with people that have been convicted of felony. we have a lot of problems in temples the "do not buy" list. so you actually need to think of this list as cient of like the do not -- kind of like the do not fly list that we have. nobody wants t
the border, that is the last line of defense, keeping the threat out of this country. proponent of big border security for a long time. to unveilting ready technology. i was disappointed to see that your budget decreases funding for border technology. question, ir that will ask an additional one. >> it is the force multiplier. track to implement our technology procurement. as you know, what i did last year was stop the investment in having one integrated power plant across the entire border because it was expensive and was not working. more off-the- shelf technology that fits a particular terrain. if we are going to talk about comprehensive immigration reform, we not be able to that. the increase of the budget on i went to afghanistan and we talked about the technologies we much in agreement. excess surplus, they're willing to share with their department. >> the budget includes $43 million which is some dod. some of those air stats are not in the best shape. not a perfect solution, but the point is an important one. to the extent we have already invested in r&d, we can transfer over the bord
is for the purpose of providing national defense and interstate commerce, but since the state have shuffled off welfare and education and everything else to the federal government, neither one of the governments are doing the job properly. another thing is i am a 21-year veteran. i think we should get out of afghanistan or any other place that we're in now that we're not going to go over there and beat the hell out of them and come on home. i think veterans a lot of times are complaining -- there are cases where they are being mistreated, but there are veterans who are complaining that are probably getting too much help as it is. i think you very much. -- thank you very much. guest: i want to thank you for your service to this country. the role of the better government, i have to agree first and foremost is a national defense. homeland security plays a key role in that. the clear role is to keep people safe and do what we can. i certainly understand the concern about making sure we do what we do it as efficiently and effectively as possible. i do see a public role with regard to the things tha
Search Results 0 to 5 of about 6

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)